Difference between revisions of "US/DOJ"
(Add about Clapper v. Amnesty International USA) |
(fa) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==Hedges v. Obama== | ==Hedges v. Obama== | ||
| + | {{FA|Hedges v. Obama}} | ||
[[Chris Hedges]] and a group of other journsalists argued that the 2012 NDAA was unconstitutional. The act gave permission to the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". | [[Chris Hedges]] and a group of other journsalists argued that the 2012 NDAA was unconstitutional. The act gave permission to the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". | ||
On July 17, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, citing [[Clapper v. Amnesty International USA]], ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal 'standing' to challenge the law<ref name="Bloomberg20130717">{{cite news|last=Dolmetsch|first=Chris|title=Ruling That Struck Down Military Detention Power Rejected|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-17/ruling-that-struck-down-military-detention-power-rejected.html|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=Bloomberg News|date=17 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="Reuters20130717">{{cite news|last=Vaughan|first=Bernard|title=U.S. appeals court tosses injunction limiting indefinite detention|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/us-usa-security-lawsuit-idUSBRE96G0XN20130717|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=Reuters|date=17 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="THP20130717">{{cite news|last=Sledge|first=Matt|title=NDAA Indefinite Detention Lawsuit Thrown Out|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/ndaa-indefinite-detention-lawsuit_n_3612354.htmlS|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=The Huffington Post|date=17 July 2013}}</ref> because it “simply says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens.”<ref name="Bloomberg20130717" /> The court held that under their interpretation the government could not use the particular law challenged by the citizen plaintiffs to militarily detain them, so they had no basis for the court to hear their case. | On July 17, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, citing [[Clapper v. Amnesty International USA]], ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal 'standing' to challenge the law<ref name="Bloomberg20130717">{{cite news|last=Dolmetsch|first=Chris|title=Ruling That Struck Down Military Detention Power Rejected|url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-17/ruling-that-struck-down-military-detention-power-rejected.html|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=Bloomberg News|date=17 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="Reuters20130717">{{cite news|last=Vaughan|first=Bernard|title=U.S. appeals court tosses injunction limiting indefinite detention|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/us-usa-security-lawsuit-idUSBRE96G0XN20130717|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=Reuters|date=17 July 2013}}</ref><ref name="THP20130717">{{cite news|last=Sledge|first=Matt|title=NDAA Indefinite Detention Lawsuit Thrown Out|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/ndaa-indefinite-detention-lawsuit_n_3612354.htmlS|accessdate=20 July 2013|newspaper=The Huffington Post|date=17 July 2013}}</ref> because it “simply says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens.”<ref name="Bloomberg20130717" /> The court held that under their interpretation the government could not use the particular law challenged by the citizen plaintiffs to militarily detain them, so they had no basis for the court to hear their case. | ||
{{SMWDocs}} | {{SMWDocs}} | ||
| + | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 17:42, 26 May 2014
 US/DOJ   
 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Motto | Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur |
| Formation | July 1, 1870 |
| Parent organization | US |
| Headquarters | Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building |
| Type |  legal |
| Interest of | Ty Clevenger |
| Exposed by | Scott Bennett, Jesselyn Radack |
| Subpage | •US/DOJ/Corruption |
Mark Gorton includes the "criminalization of the Justice Department" in the summarised history of the cabal. Some recent court decisions may elusidate to what he was referring:[1]
Contents
Saleh v. Bush
- Full article: War crime
- Full article: War crime
Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee living in Jordan filed a complaint in March 2013 against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz, arguing that they lied to the US public to deceitfully initiate a war of agression against Iraq. The United States Department of Justice brought 2 motions to dismiss the suit, claiming that since the defendants were acting within their scope of employment when planning and waging the Iraq War, they can not be held individually accountable for the harm caused. The case is currently in an unexplained legal limbo, since the hearing was cancelled sine die without explanation.[2]
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
- Full article: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
- Full article: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
The US Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have "standing" because the ACLU couldn't prove with near-certainty that their clients, including journalists and human rights advocates, were targets of surveillance. The court relied on two claims by the Justice Department
- That the NSA would only get the content of Americans' communications without a warrant when they are targeting a foreigner abroad for surveillance,
- That the Justice Department would notify criminal defendants who have been spied on under the Fisa Amendments Act
Both of these points are manifestly untrue after leaks by Edward Snowden prove that mass surveillance is targeting almost everyone, and no one is being notified of the fact. These manifest untruths notwithstanding, the ruling remains, more or less establishing a de facto precedent that anything done in secret is lawful.[3]
Hedges v. Obama
- Full article: Hedges v. Obama
- Full article: Hedges v. Obama
Chris Hedges and a group of other journsalists argued that the 2012 NDAA was unconstitutional. The act gave permission to the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". On July 17, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, citing Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal 'standing' to challenge the law[4][5][6] because it “simply says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens.”[4] The court held that under their interpretation the government could not use the particular law challenged by the citizen plaintiffs to militarily detain them, so they had no basis for the court to hear their case.
An event carried out
| Event | Description |
|---|---|
| Palmer Raids | A series of raids in 1919-1920 to capture and arrest foreign-born leftists and deport them from the United States. Breakthrough for J. Edgar Hoover. |
A Document by US/DOJ
| Title | Document type | Publication date | Subject(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| File:USDOJ - Eyewitness Evidence - A Guide For Law Enforcement.pdf | guidebook | October 1999 | Witness Evidence Standard opatering procedure | DOJ Guidelines on Eye Witness testimony |
Related Quotations
| Page | Quote | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sunny Sheu | “The ultimate, terrifying moral of the Sunny Sheu story is this: If you are threatened with death by the police in the USA, there is no where you can go for protection, and after you are killed, there is no where your friends and loved ones can go for justice. That is why this story is of critical important to every American citizen.” | Sunny Sheu Will Galison | January 2016 |
| Whitney Webb | “Bitcoiners should pay close attention to these developments as the DOJ in particular has attempted to paint bitcoin as the payment of choice for well-known terror groups like ISIS and al-Qaida, signaling that the working group proposed by this bill will likely seek to specifically target bitcoin. Adding to this concern is the fact that a slew of recent mainstream media reports — which cite Treasury and FinCEN officials, DOJ officials and CIA analysts — have claimed specifically that “terrorists are turning to bitcoin, and they’re learning fast”, that bitcoin is the “new frontier in terror financing”, and that “bitcoin is helping terrorists secretly fund their deadly attacks”. Even the prominent military think tank RAND Corporation has argued that “bitcoin and the dark web” are the newest terrorist threat.” | Whitney Webb | September 2023 |
Related Document
| Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document:The Happiest of Days | blog post | 25 June 2024 | Craig Murray | Craig Murray: "I should be plain I have always advised Julian and Stella to take a plea deal if offered and get out of jail. I have no doubt this was a life or death choice." |
A document sourced from US/DOJ
| Title | Type | Subject(s) | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| File:FBI Report - Terrorism 1980-2005.pdf | report | "Terrorism" | 2005 | FBI | Non-Muslims responsible for over 90% of all terrorist attacks in America |
Rating
30 November 2018 Robin This article points to a lot of material that expose the USDOJ for what it is.Although it barely scratches the surface, this article gives a useful set of pointers to information to help the reader understand what the modern US DOJ is.
References
- ↑ The Political Dominance of The Cabal, by Mark Gorton
- ↑ http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/03/18/18752775.php
- ↑ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/government-lies-nsa-justice-department-supreme-court
- ↑ Jump up to: a b
{{URL|example.com|optional display text}} - ↑
{{URL|example.com|optional display text}} - ↑
{{URL|example.com|optional display text}}
